Volpe

So non-native speakers should be dismissed?

Also, It would depend on what kind of evidence China has on US hacking China.

I wasn't suggesting that... Only that Vietnam and South Korean War were anything but "stabilising" and their approach could have been different.

But I like your attempt at hyperbole.

> That's just totally ridiculous. You believe that this view of North Korean belligerence is due to propaganda. That isn't what I said. I said that they are no MORE belligerent than the US, I wasn't saying they are not belligerent. Please reread.

> It is unstable not in the sense of "who is going to rule the country." It is unstable in the sense of they behave irrationally, have irrational beliefs and motivations.

Oh sure, if we redefine what "unstable" means in the context of government, then sure, you are completely correct.

> Wow, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Jerk.

Okay, I'll qualify that with: and its borders are disputed.

The US are the only country to have used nukes (in war)

They use to have nukes in sk, now they don't, but can still strike nk anyway.

So that leaves the hyperbole that NK and SK could negotiate a peace if the US withdrew. Why don't you think that is possible?

How about you respond to the inaccuracies rather than being a jerk and insulting the GP?

Really, you don't think the US is a destabilising element in Asia?

They were involved in 2 wars that had no relevance to US security, purely for ideological reasons... They are still involved in one of those wars... They lost the other one...

Great stabiliser!

You'll note my use of the word "likely".

Happy to be refuted.

That's misrepresenting US to suit US propaganda.

The US leveled two countries in order to assassinate someone in a third country. It wasn't held accountable at all.

You are right, morally they are not on the same level, but not the way you think they aren't.

Maybe you should just go google about the nazis, they invaded half the world and killed 10s of millions of people.

Talk about Godwin-ing a discussion.

I was talking politically... They are not too different.

Ideologically opposed nations that were once a single nation (to over simplify a bit)

But we're safe right? Those defence satellites worked?

The government is stable... Please show me evidence to refute that.

How many citizens are in prison in the US does that make it unstable? What a strange connection to make...

Yes the country is a mess, but the government is stable... They aren't mutually exclusive.

It doesn't matter whether nukes are going to fix the issue or not, sanctioning them for making nukes certainly isn't.

NK v SK conflict is not that different to India v Pakistan. The difference is... there are US troops sitting on the border of NK/SK, so agression between those to parties involves the US.

So who is the destabilising force in the region? I'm pretty sure "stability" isn't the goal (for the US) it's "Democracy".

> Your comment conveys another implication that UN is supposed to be impartial to issues between member countries.

It is isn't it? Otherwise it isn't a union...

> That cannot explain veto power of five permanent members of UN security council, which no other country has.

That's completely true... turns out there are more problems with the UN than just being a veil for US aggression... colour me surprised.

> You seem to think having nuclear weapons is some sort of national right or something.

No, I don't think that.

> Nobody wants an unstable, belligerent, nasty dictatorship to have the ability to nuke other countries.

The US opened this can of worms and created an imbalance in the world. North Korea is surrounded by nuclear enabled countries (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan).

As an aside:

What exactly is 'unstable' about North Korea... it's been the same ruling family for 50 years... I realise propaganda has permeated all of our views and it's difficult to see through the fog of misinformation but think about the words you use as you write them.

North Korea (from all credible reports) is a mess, and quite horrible for A LOT of people, THAT needs to change. I would not rate it any more "belligerent" than the US. It is definitely not unstable and its Nastiness extends only as far as its borders...

Right, so it makes sense that the US would be worried... not why the UN should sanction them.

I'm referring to the inconsistency. The implication of what you are saying is: "The UN only intervenes when it suits the US". To me that makes me think LESS of the UN sanctions, not more.

Yes, they are severe. my 'some' wasn't refering to the severity of the issues.

Regardless this has nothing to do with whether sanctions should be applied for testing weapons.

Erm... you mean like Pakistan did?

Your comment is an example of why this kind of propaganda works. People start hating another country they've (likely) never been to, and likely have no understanding of their motives.

Why is it wrong that NK do Nuclear testing?

I agree NK has some human rights issues, that should be addressed, but testing nuclear weapons is no different to Pakistan or India, and there are no sanctions against them.

Read the article.

It states you have to explicitly sign to have your data logged, and they have it on by default for media reviews due to some incident with Top Gear.

As I understand it, being branded a felon in the U.S is a big deal... you essentially lose a bunch of 'rights' that you have as a citizen. This dominos on to making it harder to find jobs, places to live, loans... etc.

You could argue someone with Swartz status in the community would alleviate some of those things... but I'm not sure how far that goes.

well, no... you'd drip sweat.

Erm... I think you are just not a designer yourself and don't understand the difference custom fonts can make to the 'readability' and overall feel of a website.

Using custom fonts for headlines and then a 'helvetica' variant to mix in on copy only gets you so far.

I'm not a designer, nor a narcissist, but I've seen body copy fonts used well.

I'm not conflating anything, I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that was being used to deliver a message, and that message is valid:

"If you don't want gmail splashing ads all over your messages, switch to outlook."

No need to be a jerk about it and accuse me of trolling.

custom fonts shouldn't be used for body copy?

Shouldn't technology be bending to our will? Not our will to technology?

> If you don't want it, don't use Gmail.

I'm pretty sure that is exactly the point Microsoft are making with this campaign.

They are using the fact you can't opt out of a "feature" as an excuse to opt out of a "product".

They are leveraging peoples perception of 'Privacy' to do that.

Really do you think buying an Audi will mean you can kiss the girl at Prom? Or by wearing Calvin Klein you'll look amazing from every angle? ... No, Ads lie all the time... Chrome isn't technically "Faster" but they still run ads that say as much...

irony...

That is focusing on your advantage, the message ends with "Why outlook.com is better"